Forum Index > Photography Talk > Photo Quality Printers
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Newt
Short Timer



Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 3176 | TRs | Pics
Location: Down the road and around the corner
Newt
Short Timer
PostTue Dec 02, 2003 6:19 pm 
So I've been toying around with purchasing the Epson 2200 printer. Have given a roll printer a thought or 2 but don't think the $ are worth it right now. I'm thinking the Canons are not quite as good. Any one else use a comparable photo printer? Whatchagot? Do you like it? Thanks, NN

It's pretty safe to say that if we take all of man kinds accumulated knowledge, we still don't know everything. So, I hope you understand why I don't believe you know everything. But then again, maybe you do.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostTue Dec 02, 2003 9:49 pm 
I have a Canon i960. It's been sitting in the box ever since it arrived 2 months ago so I can't comment on quality but the review over at steves-digicams was pretty good. The nice thing about the Canon printers are the individual ink tanks. http://www.steves-digicams.com/printers.html

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Alan Bauer
Member
Member


Joined: 11 Jan 2002
Posts: 942 | TRs | Pics
Location: Fall City, Washington
Alan Bauer
Member
PostTue Dec 02, 2003 10:20 pm 
I can't speak for other printers....all I know is that since the day I bought my Epson 2200 printer last summer I have never produced nicer prints "out of the box" and they only get better with more profiling and time. It's sweet!!! I agree---get a unit that have individual ink tanks. Before with older printers it drove me nuts throwing out and swapping in an entire cartridge of all colors. Now with 7 separate tanks I only change the ones out. One other nice thing with this (for the Epson, anyhow) is having various black ink options. There are different black inks for matte vs. photo papers and you can simply swap them out depending on what paper you are using. Experimenting around using matte ink on photo paper or photo black on matte paper really does show INCREDIBLE quality when matching to the paper of your preferences. There also is a "light black" ink tank....all this give incredible B&W prints in the mid-tone grays. But it isn't a $200 printer either...so the cost has to be your first consideration before you just go and get hyper over a certain printer. MANY printers do a very good job. I just wanted the ability to bump things up a notch (and a 13x19" print is fun to create in making placemats for Xmas gifts for my parents! up.gif )

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Newt
Short Timer



Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 3176 | TRs | Pics
Location: Down the road and around the corner
Newt
Short Timer
PostWed Dec 03, 2003 8:08 am 
Thanks guys. The tanks are a consideration as is the cost but feel the Epson may be a bit better for the $. Disposing of cartridges is like throwing away stove canister. Yuck I had been debating over the Canon i9100 and Epson 2200 and pretty well focused on the 2200. Both look like pretty good units. Larger paper size is a big factor also. Now I just need to see one in action before I buy. NN

It's pretty safe to say that if we take all of man kinds accumulated knowledge, we still don't know everything. So, I hope you understand why I don't believe you know everything. But then again, maybe you do.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostWed Dec 03, 2003 7:27 pm 
You can get the S9000 for $200 (+ shipping + tax) from onecall.com. Seems like a steal compared to $600 for the Epson 2200.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Newt
Short Timer



Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 3176 | TRs | Pics
Location: Down the road and around the corner
Newt
Short Timer
PostThu Dec 04, 2003 7:13 am 
Thanks Tom. You always find the good deals. You need to start a business up. I'm looking to see if it has archival quality inks/paper but can't really tell from the specs and such. Thanks, NN

It's pretty safe to say that if we take all of man kinds accumulated knowledge, we still don't know everything. So, I hope you understand why I don't believe you know everything. But then again, maybe you do.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostThu Dec 04, 2003 10:13 am 
Canon paper and ink is 25 years I think. If you're interested in more reviews on the S9000 check out this list at newegg.com. From what I gathered from the luminous-landscape reviews, the Epson 2200 is a no brainer if money isn't an issue, while the S9000 has speed, price, and glossy print quality going for it.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
sooperfly
Member
Member


Joined: 04 May 2003
Posts: 1232 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Central Wa.
sooperfly
Member
PostThu Dec 04, 2003 11:21 am 
I use a Epson 1280 and have been really happy with it. I was going to upgrade to a 2200 until I started reading all the reviews. Pretty much all of the reviewers said if you were going to use matte paper it was great, but if you were going to use glossy paper the 1280 was better. This included the review at Luminous Landscape. Here is their conclusion. (The question now becomes — how does this printer compare to the other choices available, including the Epson 1280/1290 and especially the new Canon S9000. If archival issues aren't critical for you, but lower purchase price and ongoing ink costs are, then the Epson 1280/1290 is a very good choice. The biggest strength of the S9000 is its speed; dramatically faster than anything from Epson. So if that's a major concern then the Canon is a very good choice. But if neither speed nor costs are of paramount importance then the Epson 2200 is today's hands-down choice in a photographic printer. Oh yes — one more thought. My preference is for matte printing papers, and the 2200 is outstanding with these. But frankly, with glossy papers the 2200 isn't quite as good and one should look at sample prints before making a purchase decision if high gloss papers are your preference.) Not owning the 2200, I don't have any first hand experience. Hope this helped a bit. smile.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
catwoman
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 888 | TRs | Pics
Location: somewhere near Tacoma
catwoman
Member
PostThu Dec 04, 2003 12:09 pm 
I have the Epson 2200 and love it. The profiling and color management has been a little confusing to me but I think I'm starting to get it. It may not have been so confusing if I didn't have so many things on my plate at once, though. Just been a little overwhelmed with things lately. As for the glossy vs matte...... that could be because Epson doesn't have (in my opinion) the nicest glossy paper to print on. At least I don't like it. The best glossy paper I've seen is this really super glossy Fuji paper but haven't found it to buy it and try it. That's ok, because I'm happy with the Premium Luster by Epson. It's awesome for portraits. I'm told by other people who've been doing their own printing for some time, now, that one of the important positives with the 2200 is the UltraChrome type of ink that it uses. In any case, I'm soooooo glad I got it!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Newt
Short Timer



Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 3176 | TRs | Pics
Location: Down the road and around the corner
Newt
Short Timer
PostThu Dec 04, 2003 1:30 pm 
Thanks folks. The more I read about the 2200 the more I think it fits my bill. Archival is a big factor as is the $ but I think all things considered, it's at the top of my list right now. NN

It's pretty safe to say that if we take all of man kinds accumulated knowledge, we still don't know everything. So, I hope you understand why I don't believe you know everything. But then again, maybe you do.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
catwoman
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 888 | TRs | Pics
Location: somewhere near Tacoma
catwoman
Member
PostThu Dec 04, 2003 2:10 pm 
2200 is supposed to be best for archival quality, so I've been told by other professionals.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Alan Bauer
Member
Member


Joined: 11 Jan 2002
Posts: 942 | TRs | Pics
Location: Fall City, Washington
Alan Bauer
Member
PostThu Dec 04, 2003 11:18 pm 
catwoman wrote:
2200 is supposed to be best for archival quality, so I've been told by other professionals.
In that price range I believe so, yes. Of course it isn't the "best" as all other high end Epsons like the new 4000 and the 7600 and 9600 are as well---but you get the picture that they are great! I agree that using regular glossy photo paper and the Epson 2200 isn't going to result in much---that normal glossy paper is cheap (can get 100 count bundles of it at Costco for next to nothing so it can't be much more than low end consumer quality). But the Premium Luster photo papers are SO nice...it's just "wow".

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Photography Talk > Photo Quality Printers
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum